Thermoregulation in two free-ranging subtropical insectivorous bat species: <i>Scotophilus</i> species (Vespertilionidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the thermal regulatory behaviour of free-ranging subtropical bats. We studied torpor use in two free-ranging subtropical sibling species of insectivorous bat, Scotophilus dinganii (A. Smith, 1833) and Scotophilus mhlanganii , during the austral autumn. All S. dinganii (mass 28.9 ± 2.6 g (mean ± SD)) roosted in buildings, whereas all S. mhlanganii (28.0 ± 0.4 g) roosted in the foliage of trees or in a tree cavity. Contrary to what has been seen in other subtropical species, both Scotophilus species used only one bout of torpor per day. Bats entered torpor 2 h after returning from foraging and aroused passively as the roost was heated by the sun the following day. There was a negative correlation between duration of foraging and duration of torpor, probably because bats that foraged longer had less time for torpor. Despite physical differences between roosts, foliage and building roosts appeared equally thermally labile, resulting in torpor bouts of similar depth and duration between individuals of the two species that used such roosts. Cavity-roosting female S. mhlanganii, on the other hand, used torpor bouts that were longer and shallower than those used by its female conspecifics in foliage roosts and female S. dinganii in buildings. Thus, thermal regulatory behaviour was determined more by the type of roost used than by interspecific differences in physiology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".